Agrawal v. Oklahoma Department of Labor, 364 P.3d 618

Background

Christopher Holland filed a wage claim with the Oklahoma Department of Labor (ODOL) alleging unpaid wages originally against GEO Exploration and later amended to name multiple related entities and Kris and Vimala Agrawal; claimed roughly $84,850.00.
ODOL issued an Administrative Order of Determination awarding wages and liquidated damages; appellants requested an administrative hearing and the ALJ affirmed the award after a hearing where Holland testified he worked under Kris Agrawal’s supervision across various entities.
Service attempts by certified mail were returned refused or unclaimed for many named entities; counsel Raymond Vincent had entered an appearance on behalf of the respondents and later withdrew; the ALJ authorized substitutional service by securely posting notices at business/residence locations.
At the administrative hearing ODOL admitted Holland’s documentary exhibits and allowed appellants to cross-examine but refused to permit appellants to present witnesses or exhibits because they failed to appear or file prehearing materials, citing unfair surprise.
The ODOL and district court upheld joinder of multiple corporate respondents and the ALJ’s exclusion of untimely evidence; the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and service was constitutionally sufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Joinder of multiple employers in single wage claim	Holland: ODOL may permissibly join multiple employers; statute does not prohibit joinder of defendants	Agrawal: Joinder of multiple employers barred; initial claim named only GEO Exploration; listing Agrawal/dbas created ambiguity and improper aggregation	Court: Joinder not prohibited; permissive joinder statutes apply and amendment to add employers was allowed; ALJ’s finding of employer control supported by evidence
Sufficiency of service / notice	Holland/ODOL: certified mail, attorney entry of appearance, and substitutional service by posting provided constitutionally adequate notice	Agrawal: They never received proper notice; refuse-returned mail insufficient; thus he lacked opportunity to present evidence	Court: Service through counsel, returned mail, and authorized substitutional service were sufficient; defendants had notice and opportunity to be heard
Exclusion of defendants’ evidence at administrative hearing	Holland/ODOL: Exclusion appropriate because defendants failed to attend prehearing conference or file prehearing disclosures; allowing late evidence would unfairly surprise claimant	Agrawal: Exclusion deprived them of opportunity to present defense; ALJ abused discretion	Court: ALJ did not abuse discretion; exclusion for failure to comply with prehearing procedure was reasonable and not prejudicial
Finding of employment relationship / alter-ego liability	Holland: Testimony and exhibits show Agrawal personally supervised and controlled work across entities; alter-ego/aggregation justified	Agrawal: Lack of proof he personally was employer; corporations are distinct and evidence didn’t show aggregation	Court: Substantial evidence supported conclusion Holland worked for Agrawal personally and that entities were controlled by him; ALJ’s factual determinations affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n, 318 P.3d 891 (2018 OK) (standard for affirming agency factual findings when supported by substantial evidence)
Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety v. McCrady, 176 P.3d 1194 (2007 OK) (agency findings reviewed for excess of statutory authority, arbitrary or clearly erroneous conclusions)
Stipe v. State ex rel. Board of Trustees of the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, 188 P.3d 120 (2008 OK) (agency statutory interpretation may be accorded deference where legislature has not disapproved)
Daniels v. Daniels, 634 P.2d 709 (1981 OK) (service on attorney of record suffices to satisfy due process presumptively)